Mandakis v. Borough of Matamoras
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 255
Pa. Commw. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiff Connie Mandakis tripped on a broken picnic table at Airport Park (a borough-owned public park) in June 2008 and suffered a hip injury requiring surgery.
- The picnic table had a missing wooden plank seat and was not affixed to the ground; Plaintiff admitted the table was movable.
- Plaintiff sued the Borough of Matamoras for negligence, alleging the Borough knew or should have known of the dangerous condition and failed to maintain park facilities.
- The Borough asserted governmental immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8541–8564) and moved for summary judgment, arguing the real property exception did not apply because the table was personalty, not realty.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Borough; the Commonwealth Court affirmed, concluding the injury was caused by personalty (an unfixed picnic table) and thus the real property exception to immunity was inapplicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the real property exception to governmental immunity applies | Mandakis: Borough’s failure to maintain park pavilion (i.e., failing to repair or remove a broken picnic table) is conduct relating to the care, custody or control of real property and thus fits the § 8542(b)(3) exception | Borough: Injury caused by movable personalty (picnic table not affixed); Blocker and progeny hold the exception applies only to fixtures/realty | Held: Exception does not apply because the defective picnic table was personalty (not affixed); Borough immune |
| Whether the “of/on” distinction (object must be "of" the real property) governs | Mandakis: Blocker’s focus on attachment departs from statute’s plain language and leads to absurd results allowing dangerous conditions unless attached | Borough: Blocker properly directs courts to distinguish fixtures from personalty; attachment controls | Held: Court follows Blocker: absent attachment, chattel remains personalty; Blocker approach governs |
| Whether Grieff and Hanna require a different analysis (care/custody/control focus) | Mandakis: Grieff/Hanna show negligent maintenance of property (e.g., cleaning floors) triggers the exception even if object is movable | Borough: Grieff/Hanna involved care of the realty itself (floor/mopping); not analogous to movable chattel | Held: Grieff/Hanna remain limited to negligent care of real property itself; not inconsistent with Blocker and cases applying fixture test |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Mandakis: Factual framing (care of pavilion) raises triable issue | Borough: Plaintiff conceded table was movable; no material factual dispute about attachment | Held: Summary judgment affirmed because undisputed facts show table was not affixed and thus immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Blocker v. City of Philadelphia, 563 Pa. 559, 763 A.2d 373 (Pa. 2000) (real property exception requires defect be of the realty; absent attachment, chattel is personalty)
- Grieff v. Reisinger, 548 Pa. 13, 693 A.2d 195 (Pa. 1997) (real property exception applies where negligent care of real property itself causes injury)
- Repko v. Chichester Sch. Dist., 904 A.2d 1036 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (applied Blocker to find folding table was personalty and immunity barred claim)
- Rieger v. Altoona Area Sch. Dist., 768 A.2d 912 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (gym mats not affixed to property are personalty; real property exception inapplicable)
- Hanna v. West Shore Sch. Dist., 717 A.2d 626 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (applied Grieff where negligent mopping of hallway produced hazardous puddle on real property)